As milliefink says above, Jesus Christ on a cracker!
You make a reasonable point, but that doesnāt undermine the fact that the SC has generally upheld the notion that individuals can own guns.
I think regulation is reasonable, but (as Iāve pointed out many times on BBS) probably moot and flawed because of advances in 3D printing.
What I donāt get is the peopleā@anon15383236 and @bryanāwho seem to think that the fact that I own a handgun is worth arguing against in this forum. It has no place. Seriously: āWhat milita are you a part of?ā Iād say Iāve been a very reasonable voice in the pro-gun-rights side of the debate here, and they toss off crap like that? Trying to make me look like Iām a crazed racist redneck? If not, then what is the point of that?
Well, actually, Iād say the 2nd amendment makes clear that the justification for ensuring the right to bear arms is for the sake of forming well-regulated militias and therefore if you buy a firearm with no intent of joining a well-regulated militia you are kind of subverting the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Look, thereās several different rhetorical strategies that gun control opponents default to. One of them is to insist on their inalienable rights, dammit. And they never want to cop to the fact that the right as enumerated in the constitution seems to have a little condition attached to it. If you make an argument about your rights ā or about what the supreme court has ruled ā expect to have people respond to that argument with something about militias.
Thatās just part of the problem with canned, ideologically-motivated arguments. Stock arguments get stock responses.
As to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, hereās federalist 29. Why donāt you take at least a quick look to see if the authors of the constitution agree with your interpretation.
Oh yes, now that you mention that I see that it is obviously wrong to think that a society where political power and military power are proportioned out similarly amoung the various political entities and actors would be more likely to survive challenging times with its structure unchanged than a society where the distribution of political power and miliary power differ vastlyā¦ What a fool I am to think that men who can command raw military might way out of proportion of their political power might in some cases be tempted to wonder āWhy am I listening to what these blowhards say, when I could just have them shot and be in charge myself?ā
It is pure coincidence that democracy first flourished in the same place and time where massed infantry formations were perfected and the man who was most likely to be able to win a battle for the city was the one who could get the most hoplites to follow him. Or that democracyās rebirth in modern society coincided with the development of military equipment and tactics that allowed masses of militiamen to defeat the elite, deadly, but-only-affordable-by-noblemen, chivalry. How stupid of me to notice that the leaders of feudal societies all over the globe, from popes to emperors, try to outlaw any weapon that would allow cheap, stupid, massed farmers to beat their valuable, expensive to equip, long to train shock troops.
Why, Europeās peoples have been disarmed before their governments for a whole couple of generations (which is like forever in civilizational lifetimes) and they havenāt been subjected yet. I obviously am some dumb hick who doesnāt know anything you should pause to consider in any serious intellectual way.
BTW, I never said āstable democracies canāt have gun controlā. I will now say that a democracy where military force is not distributed similarly to political power is less stable than one that is. Though there is a lot more to that than just the right to own a semi-auto varmint rifle. The culture that will support a militia, the availability of all the things that would allow one to organize and communicate and function, the vulnerability of the stateās military logistical tail, the demography and loyalty of the stateās troops, etc. would all play a part. You couldnāt, to use a purely hypothetical idea, have the secret police listen to and record everyoneās phone calls, and think things your republic is safe because you can buy 30 round magazines.
1 Like
Canāt do that, then theyād miss out on the chance to pick themselves up by their bootstraps!
āShe is a food stamp recipient who works two jobs, as a clerk at a shoe store and a hostess at a California Pizza Kitchen. They bring in $9 an hour. Mudahy said that before the end of every month, she runs out of money to feed her 3-year-old daughter, even on dinners of canned soup.ā
1 Like
NaN.
Certainly not people who want to be authority figures.
What I see in there is that they think that states should have the right to form Militias (because standing armies are bad).
What I donāt see is a stance on gun rights.
What I do see is an admission that it would be very expensive for the government to arm the entire citizenry, and by implication the notion (arguably enshrined in the 2nd Amendment) that āhey, let the people have guns, so that if we need to form a militia, we can.ā
But again, it doesnāt matter what you or I think. It matters what the SC thinks.
Oh I can read just fine, and Iām not implying that youāre stupid.And I did address your parsing of that part of the amendment, and I also pointed out that what you wrote applies to the past. Dude, we no longer need well-regulated militias.
Canāt wait to read as well your response to @wysinwygās point about how your ownership of guns, and your lack of intention when you bought them of ever joining a militia, subverts the intend of the 2nd amendment.
I can understand why you would take my use of the M-word that way; thatās how itās most commonly encountered these days. But in this instance I was merely quoting the Second Amendment.
What I canāt understand is why you think Iām arguing against your right to own a handgun. I was merely presuming out loud that if you are so serious about the second half of that sentence, then Shirley you must be equally serious about the first half.
1 Like
That wasnāt in reply to you. It was in reply to @bryan.
Moderator note here: Keep it civil or take a break.
3 Likes
Hey, what do you know! Pretty much what I thought too.
So in that case, the right for individuals to bear arms would seem to be a convenient tactic for economically achieving the real purpose of the 2nd amendment which, as you already mentioned, doesnāt seem to have much to do with the right of individuals to bear arms.
Yeah - I try to use āoneā when I can. I sometimes get sloppy. My Senior English teacher would beat me right about now.
1 Like
Where did I mention that? What I said, but you take out of context, is that it seems clear to me that since the US canāt afford to arm a militia, let people own their own guns and we can call up a milita as needed.
The justification given by the authors of the constitution for the second amendment is that states should have the right to form militias. They donāt mention anything about individual gun rights.
And the right likes to laugh at the left when the left asks for āpolitical correctnessā, but this is exactly what they demand. You must toe the ideological line or you are an enemy.
1 Like
Thatās right because its in the 2nd amendment, becuase yāknow, the federalist papers arenāt law.
Why not just repeal the 2nd Amendment? Then who cares how it should be parsed?
I can even write it for you:
Amendment XXVIII
The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Ah, now that a plain reading of Federalist 29 makes your argument look bad you insist that the Federalist papers are completely irrelevant to the interpretation of the constitution. Interesting strategy. Youāre not afraid it might make you look like an unreasonable ideologue? (Remember a few comments ago when you were complaining about how people were treating you like an unreasonable ideologue?)
1 Like
Iām not arguing against your right to own a handgun. I want to know how you can justify doing so by pointing to the 2nd Amendment, while basically ignoring the irrelevance in our times of the first, and very crucial, part of that amendment. So far, your flailing attempts to answer that basic question of mine are entirely evasive and unconvincing.
1 Like
